The Presidency of the United States has been called both the strongest and the weakest elected office in democratic government. This is because the President has no real constitutional authority to enact laws, consent to treaties, (theoretically) declare war, or even choose his own cabinet. All of these Presidential actions are dependent on the suffrage of the elected representatives in the Congress. The President can only “propose” not “dispose” and thus in a very real sense is at the mercy of both the partisan opposition and the vagaries of electoral politics in his own party when it comes to enacting his policies.
But the President is not a helpless giant. His ability to get what he wants from the Congress is usually directly related to his standing with the American people. Before opinion polls, Congressmen relied on a keen political ear in their own districts and states to tell them whether or not supporting the President would lead them into trouble. Even today, legislators can get a good sense of where their own constituents stand on the subject of the President’s popularity simply by reading their mail. True, there are organized attempts to influence the Congressman’s position by flooding he email or deluging his office with telegrams. These interest-group driven campaigns are also helpful although are not given as much weight as the letter from the 80 year old grandma who is worried about having her social security check cut.
What this adds up to is one of the truly remarkable aspects of our republic; the power of the President to get things done being dependent on how well ordinary people think he’s doing his job. This is not some pie-in-the-sky, starry eyed first year poli-sci nonsense but rather the cold calculation of power used by both parties, honed to a fine point via the science of polling, and then sliced and diced by experts to determine what kind of influence the President can wield.
Lately, the process has become even more sophisticated as “talking points” for the party faithful are promulgated based on this polling data and surrogates pan out to hit the various cable news shows where no matter what question is asked by the host, the talking points are driven home at least twice in the segment. Then more polls are taken and the process repeats itself. Both parties do it as does the Administration. In this way, the public is cajoled, pulled, pushed, and even manipulated in a dizzying, head snapping, confusing and often contradictory manner.
Surprisingly, people tend to resist a change in their feelings toward a President. This is because most Americans feel that they have a personal relationship with the man in the White House. Even before television and mass media, this was so. If anything, the ubiquitousness of the media has intensified the relationship.
I don’t have a clue what the internal polls of both the White House and the Democrats are really telling them about the attitudes of the American people toward George Bush. I suspect that the numbers are slightly better than the published polls that have come out recently showing the President’s “approval” (Do you like him?) ratings in the low 40’s. As has been pointed out many times by people like D.J. Drummond, much depends on the way a question is asked and who is being asked in the first place. Most public polls are taken to prove a point. The private, internal polling done by the White House and the Democratic National Committee are done to find out what people really think.
And that brings me to George Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice.
This has been a summer of discontent for Americans as gas prices have skyrocketed, progress in Iraq has slowed, a hurricane has virtually destroyed a major American city, consumer confidence in the future of the economy is down, and there is an overall feeling of unease in the electorate. Anyone who doubts this need only look at the political smoke signals just this past week as two high profile Republicans have declined to run for high office.
Outgoing North Dakota Governor John Hoeven has declined to run for the Senate seat currently held by vulnerable Democrat Ken Conrad while former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar tearfully turned down the opportunity to run against another vulnerable Democrat, Rod R. Blagojevich, for the statehouse in Springfield. This may be an indication that those two experienced and able politicians see 2006 as the year of the Democrat. And in an uphill battle against an incumbent office holder – even against a vulnerable incumbent – it should be apparent that the calculations made by both men included how the President was viewed in their respective states.
Bush’s nomination of Miers for the Supreme Court must be seen in this political context; the President may not have the strength to engage in a bruising partisan fight for someone more experienced and perhaps even more conservative. Not so much with the Democrats but with members of his own party who are running for re-election next year. When members of your own party start to sidle away from you, chances are your Presidency is nearing the point where your influence is waning and the crew feels less compunction is supporting the Captain as the ship is tossed on ever stormier seas.
The Bush Presidency is far from dead. But the President may have to make more decisions like the Miers choice in the future as his Administration teeters on the cusp of irrelevancy. Perhaps an easy confirmation will help him regain some momentum. That, along with the probable passage of an Iraqi Constitution next week could help the Administration regain some of the luster it has lost off its election victory less than a year ago.
9:20 am
The former IL governor is Jim, not Bob. Your theory of 2006 being the Year of the Democrat may be right, but in Edgar’s case most here believe he would have beaten Blagojevic, but stayed out for health, family, and financial reasons. Those close to him agree.
10:31 am
Are you implying that Bush reluctantly nominated a crony because he had no choice? Please.
I viewed the 2004 election as a contest between an unqualified challenger and a barely qualified incumbent. My opinion has not changed with hindsight. It’s premature to label 2006 as a Democratic year, but Bush is doing his part to make it so.
12:07 pm
Rick,
Did your brother Terry grow up in the same home with you? Must be something with the water around Georgetown.
Did you watch the same Roberts hearing that I did? What have we gotten from Scalia, Thomas? Nothing. We know how they will vote, but mostly combative alienation. Roberts will be studied for generations and will be the new mold for constitutional law. Roberts told us how he is going to set the new precedent for Mulberry vs Madison. The reach of the Court will be tempered. Look how convincing he was with hostile Democrats, and think about how he will be able to solidify consensus with Kennedy, O’Connor. In the future, we won’t even care who is put on the Court.
1:39 pm
I would still vote for the presiden, but not, in any way, for
the republicans.
Whiney, immature screeching that
sounds as if the liberals were doing it, for heaven’s sake.
If no-one can figure this man has
had to deal with one crisis after
another since 9/11 and has
always got what he wanted and
will continue to unless the
conservatives don’t wake up and
smell the coffee.
They are not good for much in my
book if this is how they complain.
5:51 pm
I agree with Ken. Edgar turned down the IL Republicans’ begging him to fill Peter Fitzgerald’s seat. He did so because he didn’t want to re-enter the political arena, having gotten comfortable in his post-governer life.
Even vulnerable incumbents have tremendous advantages over opponents. I think it may be a bit premature to cede 2006 to the party without ideas.
8:39 pm
“Did you watch the same Roberts hearing that I did? What have we gotten from Scalia, Thomas? Nothing. We know how they will vote, but mostly combative alienation. Roberts will be studied for generations and will be the new mold for constitutional law. Roberts told us how he is going to set the new precedent for Mulberry vs Madison. The reach of the Court will be tempered. Look how convincing he was with hostile Democrats, and think about how he will be able to solidify consensus with Kennedy, O’Connor. In the future, we won’t even care who is put on the Court.”
This is the same type of flattering elitist drivel that helped turn pre-justice David Souter into the left wing ideologue he has morphed into as Justice Souter.
We can only hope and pray that Roberts cares more about restoring the original intent of the framers than seeking the approval of assbags like “Fritz.â€
And what type of consensus will Roberts be solidifying with O’Conner by the way?
7:43 pm
“progress in Iraq has slowed”
Since when?
Which points up something you completely left out of this article…the power of the media. It’s the media that filters the news, gives its own narrative, and shapes public opinion.
Then they have the nerve to cite opinion polls as news. Yeah, it’s opinions the media itself created.
As for the grousing by conservatives over Miers, I’m disgusted with it. All of it. Elitism and snobbery, as bad as on the Left. I may have voted for Bush but my estimation of conservatives just went down the tubes. I’m truly disappointed in my new found friends.
7:56 am
I believe that this “Monarch” Bush, has forgotten that this is a Republic. He and Cheney are working the government like a Monarchy. While he cannot enact laws he has gone about his business circumventing them. More harm has been done to our constitution by his presidency than any other president. It is no wonder that the Democrats will win the presidency and most of the congress in the next couple of elections. Bush and his Religious right supporters have lost the trust of the silent majority and will go down in history as the worst of the worst regimes to run this country. We have seen more corruption and scandle than we can bear. Right now a BJ in the White House looks good in comparison to the BS we have been getting from Bush and his cronies.